A draft copy of a confidential memo to the UNFCCC Secretariat has surfaced here at the Copenhagen climate talks that has some pretty disturbing analysis. The memo dated December 15, concludes that at this point in the climate talks:

“Unless the remaining gap of around 1.9 to 4.2 Gt is closed and Parties commit themselves to strong action prior and after 2020, global emissions will remain on an unsustainable pathway that could lead to concentrations equal or above 550ppm with the related temperature raise around 3 degrees Celsius.” [my emphasis]

In layman terms this means that if the developed nations, like the US, Canada, Germany and France don’t commit to deeper emissions cuts at the talks underway in Copenhagen we’re screwed.

Based on the best scientific research, experts in the field have concluded that in order to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change, we need to stabilize carbon emissions at or below 350 parts per million.

Comments

This is actually some good investigative journalism! My hats off to desmog on this. How did you get this piece of info, just out of curiosity?

I disagree with your premise of 350 PPM as I have always favored the 1100 PPM target myself. Nonetheless you should get a raise as this is better investigative journalism than you will find at any newspaper or TV station today.

That would be more convincing if Canada’s tar sand work was boosting our per capita rate well above the US or Australia, but it’s not. It’s still under.

And unless I’m missing something here, The US and other more climate concerned nations can cut back on Canadian oil any time they like. (of course in reality the US is the only nation importing Canadian oil so they really hold all the options)

This ‘leaked’ document of uncertain origin and credibility shows a fundamental misinterpretation of the relationship between annual emissions of greenhouse gases and their potential impacts on global average temperature. Although the document appears to draw on analyses carried out by the Grantham Research Institute, it reaches false conclusions about the science of emissions reductions.

It is clear that current intentions on emissions reductions for 2020 are still short by a few billion tonnes of a target for global emissions of 44 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases. However this does not mean we would be on a path to a temperature rise of 3°C. In fact, current ambitions would still be consistent with a global emissions pathway offering a 50 per cent chance of avoiding a temperature rise of more than 2°C, but would require steeper reductions after 2020, which are likely to be more costly, to well below 35 billion tonnes in 2030 and well below 20 billion tonnes in 2050.

These pathways would result in a probability of no more than about 10 per cent of exceeding a temperature rise of 3°C and would mean that atmospheric concentrations would peak at about 500 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent before declining eventually to below 450 parts per million. More detailed analyses of the science than is contained in this ‘leaked’ document can be found in reports published on the website of the Grantham Research Institute (http://www.lse.ac.uk/grantham).
Fortunately most delegates appear to have access to more robust analysis than is contained in this ‘leaked’ document.

two articles (something about the”final draft” and this one) have claims about leaked messages. i think they were stolen. how can you support the theft of personal property? ok, so that was a jab at you not having a problem with info being “leaked”. hopefully my point was understood about the double standard. but on a serious note, are you foolish enough to think that this text was not intended to get out? do you really think this was something that the secretariat didn’t want anyone to see? or was this just a ploy that you help spread? when are we going to get past the point that we need to “save the planet” and agree that this is about anti-capitalism. let’s see: chavez , the coke chewing dictator, brought down the house with his anti-capitalist bs. third world countries demand reparations. and we, the US, decide to give 100 BILIION that we dont have. what a sham.

"Fossil-fuel companies have spent millions funding anti-global-warming think tanks, purposely creating a climate of doubt around the science. DeSmogBlog is the antidote to that obfuscation." ~ BRYAN WALSH, TIME MAGAZINE

About

Features

Big Oil will stop at nothing to pump every last drop of oil out of the ground, from paying scientists to say that oil spills, fracking and other routine matters of oil development projects aren’t harmful to the environment or human health, to deliberately poisoning the debate about how best to rein in climate change and bribing politicians to weaken environmental standards and other regulatory hurdles.

But this is still somehow shocking: An oil well on a high school campus? Outside a mall? At a farmer’s market?